ASW TFs -- floating targets? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Toro -> ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/21/2004 9:54:12 PM)

Okay, okay, I know you submariners out there are going, "Well, of course!" But, here's my concern, and I'd love to hear others' thoughts.

Playing as Allies, I started forming ASW TFs to pursue spotted subs, but found that when I did, I lost, within a couple weeks, over twenty DDs, plus some smaller escorts (PGs, PCs, MSWs). In return, I only sank two Japanese subs. ASW TFs were fodder for the kill.

Now, I only use ASW assets to escort convoys (large or small -- and, no, not auto-convoys, the dirty dogs they are! [;)]). Since I stopped using ASW TFs, I've sunk an additional 12 or so subs, and have lost only one or two escorts, and only one escorted AK.

My concern/question: is there something wrong with the algorithms for ASW TFs? It seems to me that subs should RUN AWAY and hide from these, not be able to piecemeal them to death. Anyone seen similar?



Mr.Frag -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/21/2004 9:56:47 PM)

Nothing wrong, but I would suggest you look at the skill levels of the ships you happen to be sending on ASW missions.

The pre-war state of ship training was pretty poor.

Against them are some pretty skilled subs.

Those that survive will get good fast, the rest will die quick deaths.



Feinder -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/21/2004 10:11:21 PM)

It's best to run whatever you plan to use as ASW hunters, in the backwaters for a while, so that the crews can build up experience. It doesn't even matter if the units are actually involved in combat, just the fact that your hunters get to play around with the sonar set for a couple of weeks before seeing "real" action.

You can form up a TF of PGs or DDs, and sail them back and forth between Auckland and Fiji about 10 times. Their exp ratings will go up enough to make them useful. In my game with Knavey, I apprehended the olde Flushdeckers from the DEI. They cruised around DEI escorting the freighters that were stripping the supplies out of DEI. It's now March '42, and they are the primary components of my "Hunter-Killer" group that patrols the Great Barrier Reef off of Oz (they're actually quite good ASW platforms, 4 each). I'm not kidding, those boys have confirmed (on the report) 5 kills, and 9 more probables (sub hasn't showed up on "sunk report" yet, but they claimed to have hit the probables at least 3 times, usu enough to sink any sub). That's 14 subs, for the loss of two "obsolete" FlushDecker DDs.

-F-



Twotribes -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/21/2004 11:11:58 PM)

But what Happened to the cry from the pack that ASW was over done? Arent we getting tweaks to ASW to tone it down, when in fact there was nothing wrong with it? I personally have not seen any super ASW, I have lost more ships doing ASW then subs sunk, just going by the sunk list not the reports from hits.



KPAX -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 12:23:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

It's best to run whatever you plan to use as ASW hunters, in the backwaters for a while, so that the crews can build up experience. It doesn't even matter if the units are actually involved in combat, just the fact that your hunters get to play around with the sonar set for a couple of weeks before seeing "real" action.

You can form up a TF of PGs or DDs, and sail them back and forth between Auckland and Fiji about 10 times. Their exp ratings will go up enough to make them useful. In my game with Knavey, I apprehended the olde Flushdeckers from the DEI. They cruised around DEI escorting the freighters that were stripping the supplies out of DEI. It's now March '42, and they are the primary components of my "Hunter-Killer" group that patrols the Great Barrier Reef off of Oz (they're actually quite good ASW platforms, 4 each). I'm not kidding, those boys have confirmed (on the report) 5 kills, and 9 more probables (sub hasn't showed up on "sunk report" yet, but they claimed to have hit the probables at least 3 times, usu enough to sink any sub). That's 14 subs, for the loss of two "obsolete" FlushDecker DDs.

-F-


Excellent post and ideas, thanks ..........[&o]



juliet7bravo -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 1:00:44 AM)

"Historically " speaking, early war (in both world wars) sending untrained/inexperienced ASW TF's (of whatever nationality) two things happened; (1) The subs seen them and ran away. (2) The subs seen them and ate their lunch. Late war, it was still happening to the IJN.

The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN, and that's with reading the I or U boats locations from the encrypted messages, using escort carriers, millimetric radar, sonobuoys, rockets, improved DC's, and homing torpedoes.

Early war, Allied ASW wasn't very good...about on par with the IJN. British ASW probably WORSE than the IJN...IRC the Brits had their ASW AC "shot down" in their first 3 attacks on U-boats. Their bombs bounced off, exploded in the air, and "shot down" the attacking AC. In at least on of the attacks, the U-boat was kind enough to "rescue" the aircrew. Lack of experience, lack of training, crappy equipment. Fortunately for the USN the IJN subs were big, loud, and operating under a very restrictive doctrine...ideal training vehicles for ASW. The USN had 3 things going for them; (1) The U-boats taught them ASW the hard way, and in a very unforgiving school. (2) The I-boats were no where near as tough a customer as a U-boat. (3) Willingness to learn, evolve doctrine, and a strong industrial base providing new and innovative equipment and weapons.



Buck Beach -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 3:49:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"Historically " speaking, early war (in both world wars) sending untrained/inexperienced ASW TF's (of whatever nationality) two things happened; (1) The subs seen them and ran away. (2) The subs seen them and ate their lunch. Late war, it was still happening to the IJN.

The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN, and that's with reading the I or U boats locations from the encrypted messages, using escort carriers, millimetric radar, sonobuoys, rockets, improved DC's, and homing torpedoes.

Early war, Allied ASW wasn't very good...about on par with the IJN. British ASW probably WORSE than the IJN...IRC the Brits had their ASW AC "shot down" in their first 3 attacks on U-boats. Their bombs bounced off, exploded in the air, and "shot down" the attacking AC. In at least on of the attacks, the U-boat was kind enough to "rescue" the aircrew. Lack of experience, lack of training, crappy equipment. Fortunately for the USN the IJN subs were big, loud, and operating under a very restrictive doctrine...ideal training vehicles for ASW. The USN had 3 things going for them; (1) The U-boats taught them ASW the hard way, and in a very unforgiving school. (2) The I-boats were no where near as tough a customer as a U-boat. (3) Willingness to learn, evolve doctrine, and a strong industrial base providing new and innovative equipment and weapons.



To me it would be better if the AI sub spotted them and ran away. It's not very realistic to have a sub confront a 4 or 5 ship ASW convoy as a suicide run to sink one ship at the cost of their own.

Buck



Ron Saueracker -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 3:49:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

But what Happened to the cry from the pack that ASW was over done? Arent we getting tweaks to ASW to tone it down, when in fact there was nothing wrong with it? I personally have not seen any super ASW, I have lost more ships doing ASW then subs sunk, just going by the sunk list not the reports from hits.


Give us a chance to read the post before you cry foul. Of course there is something wrong with it. I've been seeing results of the last build since before the game was released. I will say for the last time. Play the Mariannas scenario head to head, maneuver all subs of both side into hexes with enemy surface TFs any, leave them in the same hex, then tell me how many turns it took to have ALL subs in the scenario OOB sunk by ASW. By 1944, the way asw is modelled based on crew experience, exp levels are so high that even the IJN is absurdly lethal. But the allies are something else...they are deadly in 42 but jeez, they never miss in1944...period.



jcjordan -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 6:29:21 AM)

In my experiences vs AI at historical level, I've kicked the AI's arse when it comes to ASW regardless of exp of ship but if I use a Surface TF with same ships, I'll come out on the losing end. I normally have several ships in TF so it may be due to # of ships in TF that has the major effect as to who comes out on top.



juliet7bravo -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 7:02:06 AM)

"To me it would be better if the AI sub spotted them and ran away. It's not very realistic to have a sub confront a 4 or 5 ship ASW convoy as a suicide run to sink one ship at the cost of their own."

Yes, but the AI is so hopeless that complaining about it is totally pointless and just being non-constructively petty.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 11:25:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo
The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN, and that's with reading the I or U boats locations from the encrypted messages, using escort carriers, millimetric radar, sonobuoys, rockets, improved DC's, and homing torpedoes.

I think the RN taught the USN quite a lot about ASW, actually.

Steve.



strawbuk -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 11:39:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"Historically " speaking, early war (in both world wars) sending untrained/inexperienced ASW TF's (of whatever nationality) two things happened; (1) The subs seen them and ran away. (2) The subs seen them and ate their lunch. Late war, it was still happening to the IJN.

The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN, and that's with reading the I or U boats locations from the encrypted messages, using escort carriers, millimetric radar, sonobuoys, rockets, improved DC's, and homing torpedoes.

Early war, Allied ASW wasn't very good...about on par with the IJN. British ASW probably WORSE than the IJN...IRC the Brits had their ASW AC "shot down" in their first 3 attacks on U-boats. Their bombs bounced off, exploded in the air, and "shot down" the attacking AC. In at least on of the attacks, the U-boat was kind enough to "rescue" the aircrew. Lack of experience, lack of training, crappy equipment. Fortunately for the USN the IJN subs were big, loud, and operating under a very restrictive doctrine...ideal training vehicles for ASW. The USN had 3 things going for them; (1) The U-boats taught them ASW the hard way, and in a very unforgiving school. (2) The I-boats were no where near as tough a customer as a U-boat. (3) Willingness to learn, evolve doctrine, and a strong industrial base providing new and innovative equipment and weapons.


With respect there is grain of truth is a lot of tosh there - the tosh being 'The only people that had luck with ASW TF's was the USN'. So Johnny Walker's Hunter killer group was just lucky was it? But for another forum , far, far away. Go see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=682957&mpage=3&key=walker� for astart and read some Roskill



Twotribes -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 1:41:07 PM)

The British were ahead of the americans in ASW having fought it from 39 to 41 while we didnt start escorting ships till what mid 41?

Talk about Poor submarine warfare tactics, the American cities wouldnt turn off or restrict their lights at night and the U-Boats surfaced and spotted victims against the lights of the city at night. How long did it take before we caught a German U-Boat along the coast?

As for the game, unless you plan to make training nearly impossible, by 44 the crews SHOULD be VERY experienced and should be having good to phenominal success once a sub is spotted. Tweak the spotting routines but why screw with the routines that determine a hit?



juliet7bravo -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 2:35:37 PM)

Read the post and read some history yourself. Subject is the free-ranging ASW TF's (Hunter/Killer groups) being used in WitP, NOT convoy escort groups. Hunter-Killer groups a total failure until the USN made them work due to advances in equipment, techniques, and intel. Just a waste of ASW ships that could have been sent out with shipping as escorts...which was where the u-boats could be found. "Tosh" is thinking the two are the same animal.

You could read the post as being a slam on the RN though, sorry! Not the intent at all.

"Early war" means 2 different periods things when you're talking RN and USN. "Early war" for the British, they sucked at ASW desperately. By the time USN was on the scene the RN had already learned their ASW lessons the hard way, That "Hunter-Killer Groups didn't work with the weapons/equipment/techniques they had available then for one. Convoys a desperate requirement...which Admiral King resisted just as strongly as the Admiralty did, even with the recent British experience. The use of LR air for ASW...which Admiral King resisted just as strongly as the Admiralty did, again, even with the recent British experience. Q-ships...both navies had to try that on for size, just at different times. We could go on. IJN learned none of these lessons until far to late, and even then didn't take them to heart. "early war" for the USN they sucked at ASW as well, in spite of benefiiting through the RN's experience...still, the USN went through an almost identical period of "denial".



Twotribes -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 3:17:37 PM)

And check the ability of early war depth charges to hit, they suck, it is hard as hell to hit a sub even if you detect one. It is already modeled in the game.

The complaint that in 44 the ASW is working to good doesnt wash. IT SHOULD be working good in 44, better tactics, better sonar, better depth charges, better crews. The tweak if one is needed is in SPOTTING the sub, not in hitting it when spotted.

Just because the US DIDNT make hunter killer groups in 42 and such doesnt mean the player should be restricted in some manner. The same arguement the Japanese players use is that they dont wanna repeat history so give them total freedom to move troops and equipment anywhere they want. It applies to the US too.



dacharls -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 3:27:12 PM)

There no problem in sunking every Jap sub you can find early in the war just see to it that you have airsearch (ASW search) then you sink the sub in 1-3 days with a surface TF (ASW combat). I have found out that the optimal number of ship is (4DD + 2APD) or (6DD + 2MSW) or (8ASW). They almost never fail me. (start - Feb 1943)

The jap on the other hand sux bigtime. The optimal number is 25 ASW or PG, this is sick of about 120 ASW attacks I have detected a sub around 30 times and lunched DC about 15 times. (start to mid april 1942).


But on the other hand this is one of the best ways to gain xp on your ships crews I use this as my shakedown cruise.



Twotribes -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 3:32:27 PM)

I am not playing 1943, I am still in 42 and the Japanese havent had much trouble sinking american subs, I think I have lost more than he has.

Of course it is hard to hit them. check the editor and the hit number for early war depth charges is horrible.



sven6345789 -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 3:38:23 PM)

I play a pbem campaign as the allied player and have been able to sink japanese subs on a regular bases. did loose 2 destroyers in the process, but about 12 japanese subs are no more.



strawbuk -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 4:00:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Read the post and read some history yourself.


Bit flamey was I? Not my intention.[:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo
Subject is the free-ranging ASW TF's (Hunter/Killer groups) being used in WitP, NOT convoy escort groups.


Mine too. Commander Walker RN (ie not USN) ran a highly sucessful HK grp (not escort group). We both need to reread posts [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo Hunter-Killer groups a total failure until the USN made them work due to advances in equipment, techniques, and intel.


Just substitute USN with 'allied' so we don't forget Canadians as well as Brits. Just not a USN speciality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo Just a waste of ASW ships that could have been sent out with shipping as escorts...which was where the u-boats could be found. "Tosh" is thinking the two are the same animal.


Nope, I know difference as above

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo "Early war" means 2 different periods things when you're talking RN and USN. "Early war" for the British, they sucked at ASW desperately. By the time USN was on the scene the RN had already learned their ASW lessons the hard way, That "Hunter-Killer Groups didn't work with the weapons/equipment/techniques they had available then for one. Convoys a desperate requirement...which Admiral King resisted just as strongly as the Admiralty did, even with the recent British experience. The use of LR air for ASW...which Admiral King resisted just as strongly as the Admiralty did, again, even with the recent British experience. Q-ships...both navies had to try that on for size, just at different times. We could go on. IJN learned none of these lessons until far to late, and even then didn't take them to heart. "early war" for the USN they sucked at ASW as well, in spite of benefiiting through the RN's experience...still, the USN went through an almost identical period of "denial".


Yep yep and yep but with difference of opinion on experience transfer - a difference debated by forum's favorite troll/expert and no-nothing me http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=682957&mpage=3&key=walker? .
MOST vital aspect being use of RDF 'tactically (huff-duff) and strategically (enigma). eg the use of HK groups to kill off all the U-tanker boats based on enigma info.

My humble view - despite Atlantic experience, insufficient transfer across to Pacific so both USN and RN skills start poor against live enemy - balanced by 'poor' (in terms of dive/manouvre) IJN boats. Forget sinking of midgets off Pearl, death traps anyway. In theatre experince and all the technology improvements you describe should rapidly make allied asw uber by 1944 (as long as crews 'experienced' in WITP terms),



strawbuk -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 4:03:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The complaint that in 44 the ASW is working to good doesnt wash. IT SHOULD be working good in 44, better tactics, better sonar, better depth charges, better crews. The tweak if one is needed is in SPOTTING the sub, not in hitting it when spotted.


Agree



UncleBuck -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 5:09:05 PM)

Just as in teh Atlantic, once Allied subs started to use Hedhog type weapons for ASW the enemy subs were finished. They were not wonder weapons but they were contact onlyu. htey also had a much greater range than the depth charge and one hit woudl seriously damge a sub. More than that, it woudl tell the hunters where they sub was , the mortar woudl nto explode except for contact, and using simple time/water qualtity you had a very good idea of depth.

Early in the war, I don't have much trouble driving IJN subs away I report hits, and lots of them, but no subs show up as sunk. THey may be damaged, but i thin kit is more FOW than anything else. Late war, when I attach ASW TF's to Convoys it is deadly to subs.

UB



Nikademus -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 5:14:20 PM)

Hedgehogs weren't so great because as mentioned...they were contact only which required a direct hit to do anything vs. depth charges which only needed a near miss. As part of an overall arsenal of course....it was one more piece of the puzzle.

The greatest difference and most effective weapon? The aircraft.

Most effective ASW platform.....the B-24.



UncleBuck -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 5:25:41 PM)

Not in the Pacific. Much to much area teh B-24's couldn't cover. The Hedge Hog gave you very accurate data on where teh Sub was. Also It increased the area ONE ASW ship could attack by 150%. The Range was fairly good and teh dispersion was also good. Once you found them with a Hedghog attack rolling Depth charges was teh Coup de grace.

UB



Nikademus -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 5:42:01 PM)

Correct. That was one of the biggest differences between the Pacific and Atantic......the airpower factor. The Allies were able to cover more and more of their routes in the Atlantic with airpower save for the mid-ocean Iceland gap and that was closed latewar by the CVE. The vast stretches of the Pacific made land based ASW all but impossible but was largely moot anyway since the Japanese never seriously attempted a commerce war against the long USN supply lines.

Wasn't saying the "hedgehog" wasn't effective...just that it's overrated. Simple common sense....a contact only weapon is harder to get a hit with vs a proximity weapon....same scenerio as with the VT fuse. If you ask me, a much better system to tout would be the forward/side throwing DC rack. Regardless....the scourage of the Uboat was the aircraft. Aircraft made it all but impossible for Uboats to approach on surface or charge batteries or escape (save for slow underwater). They were also the primary component that made the HK group workable as a concept.



Feinder -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 5:56:41 PM)

Did they even have FORWARD firing DCs...?

Capt - Fire the forward DC launcher!
Petty Officer - But sir!
Capt - I said do it!
Petty Officer - FIRE!
(* kapow *)
(* glug... glug... glug...*)
Petty Officer - Sir...?
Capt - Yes Petty Officer?
Petty Officer - Shouldn't we alter course?
Capt - Why?
(* DD moves over where DC landed *)
(* KABOOM! *)
(* Keel of DD splits in two, DD sinks with all hands, except for the PO who is thrown clear *)
Petty Officer - That's why sir!

-F-



Nikademus -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 6:03:05 PM)

LOL....your right....make that side throwing. (always the fun part about posting from work )



Speedysteve -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 6:35:16 PM)

LOL Feinder[:D]



strawbuk -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 6:52:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The Allies were able to cover more and more of their routes in the Atlantic with airpower save for the mid-ocean Iceland gap and that was closed latewar by the CVE.


Pedantic old me but ...Nope - landbased air (Veeeeeeeeeeerry LR Libertors) could eventualy close whole gap, by clever basing. And CVEs less effective due to inabilty to fly aircraft off for the autumn/winter/spring months of year in N Atlantic when Uboats most acrtive. CVEs saw most ASW action further south.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Wasn't saying the "hedgehog" wasn't effective...just that it's overrated. Simple common sense....a contact only weapon is harder to get a hit with vs a proximity weapon....same scenerio as with the VT fuse. If you ask me, a much better system to tout would be the forward/side throwing DC rack.


Agree in that it was hard to get a 'hit' due to contact fuse, (though 'near miss' on a depth charge is over rated - you would still need to be pretty close with several DC for a kill and it is a big three dimensional ocean even with a good asdic plot) but any sub hit by a direct contact of 35lbs of Torpex is unlikely to come back up again.



mdiehl -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 7:07:45 PM)

quote:

Early war, Allied ASW wasn't very good...about on par with the IJN. British ASW probably WORSE than the IJN...IRC the Brits had their ASW AC "shot down" in their first 3 attacks on U-boats.


In most sub vs Allied escort encounters if the subs stuck around to shoot anything at the escorts it was the subs' lunch that got eaten. Examples abound. It had little to do with experience. *All* Allied escort crews were adequately trained to give them an advantage against an aggressive submarine, and far far better trained and equipped for ASW than their Japanese escort counterparts. One of the keener examples was in May 1942. A German Type IX fired a torpedo spread at a container ship escorted by a USCG 165' patrol yacht. The container ship spotted the torps and evaded. The sub fired another shot at the 165' as it closed to attack. The sub missed. The yacht collected toothpaste tubes that bobbed to the surface after *one* DC run. While this is not typical (1 attack 1 kill), the balance in escort vs sub warfare always favored the escort *surviving* such an encounter *unscathed*. In 1942 the usual result was that the sub submerged and escaped as long as the skipper was not foolish enough to stick around. When the subs stayed to fight with escorts, they lost virtually every time.

The RN/RCN were in 1941 somewhat better than the USN. Both navies were far superior to the IJN at ASW, and escorts of both navies were likely to sink a submarine foolish enough to engage an escort.

quote:

Their bombs bounced off, exploded in the air, and "shot down" the attacking AC.
In at least on of the attacks, the U-boat was kind enough to "rescue" the aircrew. Lack of experience, lack of training, crappy equipment.


Leaving aside the strange notion of making a trend out of one incident, (and that one involving an a/c), the RN surface escorts were more than a match for an aggressive German sub, when the sub was found. The usual problem for the Uk had very little to do with losses of escorts, but rather with merchant ships.

quote:

The USN had 3 things going for them; (1) The U-boats taught them ASW the hard way, and in a very unforgiving school.


Bunk. Escorts knew how to sink subs, even in 1939 even in the USN. The "unforgiving school" of which you speak has nothing to do with escort losses and more to do with C2 losses. Even then, speaking for example of the "happy time" the problem was not so much one of training or equipment but rather one of a simple numerical insufficiency of escorts. In most cases, when an escort was attacked by a submarine, the submarine missed. If the submarine then stayed for a follow up shot, odds favored the escort to sink the submarine. That is why the sub's best tactic was always to not engage escorts at all (shooting a torp at one was usually a wasted shot) and to flee from escorts when detected.

quote:

(2) The I-boats were no where near as tough a customer as a U-boat. (3) Willingness to learn, evolve doctrine, and a strong industrial base providing new and innovative equipment and weapons.


True enough for the rest.



mdiehl -> RE: ASW TFs -- floating targets? (9/22/2004 7:11:30 PM)

VLR liberators could cover the mid-ocean gap via Iceland bases. Some of the same weather problems as the CVEs faced. Another big hole in the mid-ocean gap was solved when the US negotiated with Portugal to use the Azores as a VLR liberator ASW base and transfer base for moving a/c to N.Africa.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5